N-Word and what Hamilton said are complete polar opposites. What Hamilton said was sensible, the N-Word is not. He didn't say anything derogatory or negative in any capacity which is why whomever took offense to it needs to stop it already and those whom appease them as well.

The whole allowing people to do whatever they want so they feel their "preferences" are being catered to and considered needs to stop at some point. I mean at what point does common sense come into play? Soon sociopaths will demand their needs and desires need to be met as well and some maniacal coddler is going to agree and make it so they too feel special. I mean some nut job in Canada already declared sex acts with animals legal so I guess all this would fall right in line with all that.

Please read carefully what I wrote, I didn't equate the two examples, just said that your sentence is not necessarily right. I don't feel that this is a strong argument, that someone else has said or done something before so it is ok to do so...

I realize that. Having said that, just because today droves of people are looking for reasons to whine and complain about others saying something wrong doesn't mean they're right. They are free to disagree but that's it.

If Hamilton had said 3+4+17 then he'd be wrong, but just because others don't like what he said doesn't deem it wrong, no matter how much people want to believe it. That's a huge difference and that's what society is getting wrong, and before anyone jumps to call that into question… The KKK vehemently believes their collective opinion is correct and there are literally millions of members around the world that think that way… but not a single one of them is correct.

N-Word and what Hamilton said are complete polar opposites. What Hamilton said was sensible, the N-Word is not. He didn't say anything derogatory or negative in any capacity which is why whomever took offense to it needs to stop it already and those whom appease them as well.

The whole allowing people to do whatever they want so they feel their "preferences" are being catered to and considered needs to stop at some point. I mean at what point does common sense come into play? Soon sociopaths will demand their needs and desires need to be met as well and some maniacal coddler is going to agree and make it so they too feel special. I mean some nut job in Canada already declared sex acts with animals legal so I guess all this would fall right in line with all that.

You say it’s not comparable with the n-word (agreed) but then draw comparisons between wearing a dress and having sex with animals...

I realize that. Having said that, just because today droves of people are looking for reasons to whine and complain about others saying something wrong doesn't mean they're right. They are free to disagree but that's it.

If Hamilton had said 3+4+17 then he'd be wrong, but just because others don't like what he said doesn't deem it wrong, no matter how much people want to believe it. That's a huge difference and that's what society is getting wrong, and before anyone jumps to call that into question… The KKK vehemently believes their collective opinion is correct and there are literally millions of members around the world that think that way… but not a single one of them is correct.

Well, isn't this pretty much what I was writing above? That because some people say something, it isn't necessarily right.

Unless they are trying the Trump method of "say it many times and people will think it is correct"...

N-Word and what Hamilton said are complete polar opposites. What Hamilton said was sensible, the N-Word is not. He didn't say anything derogatory or negative in any capacity which is why whomever took offense to it needs to stop it already and those whom appease them as well.

The whole allowing people to do whatever they want so they feel their "preferences" are being catered to and considered needs to stop at some point. I mean at what point does common sense come into play? Soon sociopaths will demand their needs and desires need to be met as well and some maniacal coddler is going to agree and make it so they too feel special. I mean some nut job in Canada already declared sex acts with animals legal so I guess all this would fall right in line with all that.

You say it’s not comparable with the n-word (agreed) but then draw comparisons between wearing a dress and having sex with animals...

Wearing a dress and Sex with animals are things that people will argue about because those are things they want. The N-word is a racial slur that is purely rooted in hate and disgust for human beings. 2 different things.

N-Word and what Hamilton said are complete polar opposites. What Hamilton said was sensible, the N-Word is not. He didn't say anything derogatory or negative in any capacity which is why whomever took offense to it needs to stop it already and those whom appease them as well.

The whole allowing people to do whatever they want so they feel their "preferences" are being catered to and considered needs to stop at some point. I mean at what point does common sense come into play? Soon sociopaths will demand their needs and desires need to be met as well and some maniacal coddler is going to agree and make it so they too feel special. I mean some nut job in Canada already declared sex acts with animals legal so I guess all this would fall right in line with all that.

You say it’s not comparable with the n-word (agreed) but then draw comparisons between wearing a dress and having sex with animals...

Wearing a dress and Sex with animals are things that people will argue about because those are things they want. The N-word is a racial slur that is purely rooted in hate and disgust for human beings. 2 different things.

I think we’re saying different things.

Wanting to have sex with animals and wanting to wear a dress are as far apart from eachother as someone saying boys shouldn’t wear dresses and calling someone the n word.

You called out the latter comparison on the but made the former in the same post.

N-Word and what Hamilton said are complete polar opposites. What Hamilton said was sensible, the N-Word is not. He didn't say anything derogatory or negative in any capacity which is why whomever took offense to it needs to stop it already and those whom appease them as well.

The whole allowing people to do whatever they want so they feel their "preferences" are being catered to and considered needs to stop at some point. I mean at what point does common sense come into play? Soon sociopaths will demand their needs and desires need to be met as well and some maniacal coddler is going to agree and make it so they too feel special. I mean some nut job in Canada already declared sex acts with animals legal so I guess all this would fall right in line with all that.

You say it’s not comparable with the n-word (agreed) but then draw comparisons between wearing a dress and having sex with animals...

Wearing a dress and Sex with animals are things that people will argue about because those are things they want. The N-word is a racial slur that is purely rooted in hate and disgust for human beings. 2 different things.

I think we’re saying different things.

Wanting to have sex with animals and wanting to wear a dress are as far apart from eachother as someone saying boys shouldn’t wear dresses and calling someone the n word.

You called out the latter comparison on the but made the former in the same post.

If I can nit pic a little here, but it is central to the argument, it was not ' boys shouldn’t wear dresses', it was boys don't usually wear dresses (of that type implied).

It does make quite a difference. Shouldn't shows a point of view, probably intended as guidance. Don't usually is an observation, and neutral .

To nit pic further he didn't say "usually" but rather just "boys don't wear princess dresses".

But I think it was saying it made him sad that was the problem, but anyway it got waaaaaaay overblown as usual, he was clearly joking.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

To nit pic further he didn't say "usually" but rather just "boys don't wear princess dresses".

But I think it was saying it made him sad that was the problem, but anyway it got waaaaaaay overblown as usual, he was clearly joking.

My neighbors have a beautiful six year old daughter. If I berated and bullied her for a bad choice, just saying "just joking" will not erase the pain and damage I inflicted on that sweet young girl.

Trust me, I can be as tough and hard as one can imagine. But I also recognize that other people have feelings. If I was to meet your significant other, and commented that the marriage must have been for money because someone got beat in the face with an ugly stick, I may be technically in the right, but make no mistake, I did hurt someone's feelings.

John Wayne is dead, that era is dead too. We know that female genital mutilation is just wrong, that calling anyone by the "N" word is darn offensive, and all of this falls under the umbrella of "politically correct". And it's a very simple concept, that if you are offensive to anyone, you are being offensive and not a nice person.

To nit pic further he didn't say "usually" but rather just "boys don't wear princess dresses".

But I think it was saying it made him sad that was the problem, but anyway it got waaaaaaay overblown as usual, he was clearly joking.

My neighbors have a beautiful six year old daughter. If I berated and bullied her for a bad choice, just saying "just joking" will not erase the pain and damage I inflicted on that sweet young girl.

Trust me, I can be as tough and hard as one can imagine. But I also recognize that other people have feelings. If I was to meet your significant other, and commented that the marriage must have been for money because someone got beat in the face with an ugly stick, I may be technically in the right, but make no mistake, I did hurt someone's feelings.

John Wayne is dead, that era is dead too. We know that female genital mutilation is just wrong, that calling anyone by the "N" word is darn offensive, and all of this falls under the umbrella of "politically correct". And it's a very simple concept, that if you are offensive to anyone, you are being offensive and not a nice person.

Not really relative, but straingr you use John Wayne as a n example. Not many men were called Marion then

Blinky, I get what you're saying but the examples you gave were specific to those people and saying things that directly affect and make someone feel bad should never be done. Making a generalized statement that isn't incorrect should not be met with hostility and/or questioning from people simply because they champion some dude being named Woman of the Year, which BTW, will never be correct in a gazillion years, in any galaxy, no matter how far, far away.

I reiterate, The garment was a PRINCESS Dress, NOT a gender neutral royal offspring garb. I'm all for being sensitive to peoples' feelings but there are certain things that are just plain stupid no matter how many over-coddled people take to the internet to grow a lynch mob in an attempt to make their ridiculous crusade SEEM as though it's valid, it will never be.

I'm the father of 3 beautiful children, but when they come to me expressing genuine sentiment over the most absurd reasons, it is my duty to first break down the situation to grasp a greater understanding of what they are feeling and why, and if it is as absurd as it sounded initially, I explain to them why and how their emotions got the best of them, and they realize how silly the whole thing was and sometimes they actually laugh at themselves having gotten so worked up about nothing. Things like this are no different. People see, hear or read something, and they feel a certain way and jump to call people out without ever stopping to think if the comment was genuinely offensive or if they're just making a mountain out of a mole hill because the interwebs says they can.

To nit pic further he didn't say "usually" but rather just "boys don't wear princess dresses".

But I think it was saying it made him sad that was the problem, but anyway it got waaaaaaay overblown as usual, he was clearly joking.

My neighbors have a beautiful six year old daughter. If I berated and bullied her for a bad choice, just saying "just joking" will not erase the pain and damage I inflicted on that sweet young girl.

Trust me, I can be as tough and hard as one can imagine. But I also recognize that other people have feelings. If I was to meet your significant other, and commented that the marriage must have been for money because someone got beat in the face with an ugly stick, I may be technically in the right, but make no mistake, I did hurt someone's feelings.

John Wayne is dead, that era is dead too. We know that female genital mutilation is just wrong, that calling anyone by the "N" word is darn offensive, and all of this falls under the umbrella of "politically correct". And it's a very simple concept, that if you are offensive to anyone, you are being offensive and not a nice person.

If she was your niece,her family was laughing along and you were laughing while you took the mick out of her attire and said you were just joking I'd at least be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were indeed joking before losing my mind about it.

I obviously wouldn't if you just poked your head over your fence and started berating and bullying your neighbours small daughter.

Apples and Oranges.

Lewis is a prat for thinking, especially these days, that a tiny snapshot of family interaction on Christmas Day is suitable for the public who don't know you, don't know the family, don't know how your family interact and so are left to fill in the blanks themselves on Social Media and try to equate it to any or all experiences, no matter how far removed, they may have had themselves and then get upset thinking about that experience and tie the two together until we're at a point you think your comparison is valid and represents at its core what Hamilton was doing.

If you genuinely feel Lewis was trying to berate,bully and belittle his nephew on Christmas Day with those comments rather than just joke around in an albeit crass and entirely unfunny manner then fair enough. Personally I think it was clear he was just winding him up in much the same way annoying uncles do but in a ill advised manner and on a topic the Twitteratti are going hard at right now.

The fact he shared it publicly is likely the biggest clue to his intent don't you think? Unless he just fancied seeing how we'd react to him bullying and berating random children on Christmas Day, which just sounds a bit weird but then I've seen some of his hats so fair enough...

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

First I heard of this was listening to the radio where a commentator said something along the lines that ‘Lewis Hamilton has shown himself to be a nasty bully and his actions could have a serious detrimental effect on this young person growing up’….

That commentator's SENSATIONALISM is the type of things these maniacal groups live to do. Take something as small and as innocent as this and then set off on a crusade to get as many people to agree with them so their lynch mob appears to be the victimized party.

That commentator's SENSATIONALISM is the type of things these maniacal groups live to do. Take something as small and as innocent as this and then set off on a crusade to get as many people to agree with them so their lynch mob appears to be the victimized party.

To be fair, Mercenary, that is certainly an extreme example, and I doubt any of us would go along with it. However, in the interest of fairness, you must admit that many comments that people do react to are just as extreme (sensational) and ridiculous which is why people do respond... most responsibly, but certainly not all.

Agreed, but THAT is precisely what FEEDS this type of BULLSHIT mentality and people need to THINK about how what was said offended others before automatically giving credence to their position and line of thinking. It's not realistic and it's not fair and celebrities are people just like EVERYONE else so for them to be held to a higher standard is a bit much. They're just people with extraordinary talent and/or abilities and companies EXPLOIT their celebrity to make money, so them bailing on or reprimanding a person because they said something as ludicrously BS as this is ridiculous.

1) It wouldn't bother me if that had been said to me (I think). Now, I'm not saying that what offends me and doesn't offend me is the be-all and end-all of offence. Plenty of words and terms don't offend me but I wouldn't use. I've also never gone through certain significant life events that may well colour what I find offensive.

2) Age. This isn't an excuse but might be a mitigating factor. I'm roughly Hamilton's age. When I was young we didn't have all this discussion about gender roles and sexuality was a sliding scale between hetro and homo. In a relatively short time (it seems to me) that has substantially changed. Again, it's not an excuse. However, the ideals instilled in people tend to last. Like how my Gran sometimes uses certain words or phrases that aren't PC these days.

3) Intent. I don't much care for Hamilton outside of his racing car. I think he's become a total sugarplum. I do not think he was trying to harm this kid in any way. It's boisterous teasing at worst and frankly that happens. I'm not condoning crossing the line to offending or hurting people. I really do feel like intent is a hugely vital part of this whole equation. If someone does something from "ignorance", they should discuss the issue with them and educate them. If someone does something out of malice, then it is a whole other kettle of fish.

4) Treatment of Lewis Hamilton. A bunch of people got tiddled off on someone else's behalf and decided to try and irritate the guy at best, "bully" or shame him perhaps. At worst, they want him to lose sponsors or jobs or opportunities. Some seem to think he should be pelted with rotten fruit as he walks down the street. That isn't any semblance of justice. That is vengeance.

5) It's actually quite difficult to work out what will offend people. For instance, being told boys don't wear dresses wouldn't bother me because I've never wanted to wear a dress. If I did prefer to wear dresses for whatever reason but was told it wasn't proper or the like, I could see that being significantly more of an issue for me. The thing is, I don't think I could realise that this would be offensive unless I was informed by someone else it was offended. My life experience has resulted in me being me and you all being yourselves. I would not have expected saying this would offend people because my experience with saying and hearing these things is framed entirely differently. Now I know that it does, I can understand that but the rules are changing.

One large fault jumps out at me within my own points. I think it comes down to ignorance and what that means. I do not think ignorance is an excuse. I do not necessarily think that the rules for harmonious living with other humans are innate. It's fairly obvious that going around beating people up isn't a good thing from a simple "do unto others" type scenario. With words and ideas that becomes a much more intangible and complicated area. I'm not sure where ignorance stops and the subject being very complex and ever changing comes in to play. We cannot expect everyone to know everything and behave perfectly to everyone at all times.

tl;dr version - I don't think it was malicious. The rules can be hard to keep up with. If you haven't been through something that shapes you in a certain way, it can be hard to comprehend that it would be offensive without someone telling you it is offensive. If someone is saying something offensive and without malice, then explaining it is probably more useful than slating the person online.

1) It wouldn't bother me if that had been said to me (I think). Now, I'm not saying that what offends me and doesn't offend me is the be-all and end-all of offence. Plenty of words and terms don't offend me but I wouldn't use. I've also never gone through certain significant life events that may well colour what I find offensive. Everyone's lives are littered with UNIQUE experiences so realistically speaking, everyone has different sensitivities to different things. HOWEVER, just because some people find certain things offensive doesn't mean they are indeed offensive by nature, and some people need to realize their perceptions of certain things are unique to them so they'll simply have to deal with it.

2) Age. This isn't an excuse but might be a mitigating factor. I'm roughly Hamilton's age. When I was young we didn't have all this discussion about gender roles and sexuality was a sliding scale between hetro and homo. In a relatively short time (it seems to me) that has substantially changed. Again, it's not an excuse. However, the ideals instilled in people tend to last. Like how my Gran sometimes uses certain words or phrases that aren't PC these days.Hamilton is as Hip to everything as it gets so he's well aware of the current climate of the overly sensitive coddling movement, but what he said was not wrong, not did it harbor malice or hatred for anyone or anything. Some things just are and people need to get over themselves. If a baby went around wearing sexual apparatuses and he said babies aren't supposed to see or play with those things, some idiots would still have something to say.

3) Intent. I don't much care for Hamilton outside of his racing car. I think he's become a total sugarplum. I do not think he was trying to harm this kid in any way. It's boisterous teasing at worst and frankly that happens. I'm not condoning crossing the line to offending or hurting people. I really do feel like intent is a hugely vital part of this whole equation. If someone does something from "ignorance", they should discuss the issue with them and educate them. If someone does something out of malice, then it is a whole other kettle of fish. Don't know what you mean by Sugarplum, but I imagine it's not a good thing.

His comments weren't in any way shape or form born from ignorance, but rather real life experience and good ole common sense. Hamilton does a great deal of charity work with different organizations (the only one I disagreed with was his visit to Cuba with UNICEF because like every high-profile celebrity that visits the country he's only shown certain areas and certain things and what's going on in Cuba is only known by those whom live there which are family members to some of us) so he does PLENTY of good and is undeserving of the piling I see many partake in, for NO valid reason.

So when it comes to Intent or ignorance, in this matter there was zero.

4) Treatment of Lewis Hamilton. A bunch of people got tiddled off on someone else's behalf and decided to try and irritate the guy at best, "bully" or shame him perhaps. At worst, they want him to lose sponsors or jobs or opportunities. Some seem to think he should be pelted with rotten fruit as he walks down the street. That isn't any semblance of justice. That is vengeance.Agreed. It's ridiculous that it elevated to the level that it did, and it did so only because of predatory Social Media Justice Warriors who's greatest mission in life is to twist words to suit ill-founded agendas.

5) It's actually quite difficult to work out what will offend people. For instance, being told boys don't wear dresses wouldn't bother me because I've never wanted to wear a dress. If I did prefer to wear dresses for whatever reason but was told it wasn't proper or the like, I could see that being significantly more of an issue for me. The thing is, I don't think I could realise that this would be offensive unless I was informed by someone else it was offended. My life experience has resulted in me being me and you all being yourselves. I would not have expected saying this would offend people because my experience with saying and hearing these things is framed entirely differently. Now I know that it does, I can understand that but the rules are changing. BIB… Also because Dresses are made FOR GIRLS! LOL

Newsflash world!… It's not hateful, insensitive, demeaning or ignorant to speak the truth! And to be perfectly clear, I don't care if a grown man wants to wear a bikini to the beach, a dress to a job interview or anything like that because their wild fantasies are theirs and they are free to do whatever they like (within reason - many think they are free to be vulgar and indecent and and go beyond the point), but it's unfair for those groups to misguidedly seek attention at the expense of others. If us hetero men would ever dare speak of our escapades in the workplace the way gay men are openly allowed to under the guise of it being funny or silly, we'd be fired on the spot and possibly sued in court for being vile disgusting pigs who demean women and people in general with reckless abandon, and are in dire need of treatment for sexual addiction.

One large fault jumps out at me within my own points. I think it comes down to ignorance and what that means. I do not think ignorance is an excuse. I do not necessarily think that the rules for harmonious living with other humans are innate. It's fairly obvious that going around beating people up isn't a good thing from a simple "do unto others" type scenario. With words and ideas that becomes a much more intangible and complicated area. I'm not sure where ignorance stops and the subject being very complex and ever changing comes in to play. We cannot expect everyone to know everything and behave perfectly to everyone at all times.I commend you for this because it's obvious you put a great deal of thought into this assessment of yourself and the world in general but I'm here to tell you, that although it may not come off as such, this is how I think as well, BUT that doesn't give others the right to continue to evolve what they feel like adding to the pile of crap everyone needs to watch out for, or else they'll sick the Social Media Justice Warriors on you. It's unrealistic and unfair and the most important thing to ponder is WHERE does it end? because at the rate it's going you wont even be able to exchange hellos with people because your smile when saying it was 2mm shy of what that person expected and that fact that your 36 muscles were maxed out for that smile is of no concern to that maniac.

tl;dr version - I don't think it was malicious. The rules can be hard to keep up with. If you haven't been through something that shapes you in a certain way, it can be hard to comprehend that it would be offensive without someone telling you it is offensive. If someone is saying something offensive and without malice, then explaining it is probably more useful than slating the person online.BIB…

Like I said earlier, some peoples' and groups' hangups are unrealistic and in today's world some of them make those things up as they go and a sliding scale should ever be used when gauging peoples' sensitivities, especially when they feel making things up as they go is ok. The "Q" speaks to just that because if you ask several people who are actively fighting for the organization what that stands for you'll get different answers. What are we supposed to be sensitive to there if they can't even figure it out for themselves?

Did you know several iterations were pondered and proposed before settling on LGBTQ? L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.

The one I bolded is seriously the one genuine group in all this my heart goes out to because they are genuinely born with an anatomy that is even perplexing to them, but the terminology is not right. Intersex is a term drummed up to make it flow with their cool acronym but the correct term is hermaphrodite. Unfortunately that word is so medically technical that it sounds like a term from a science fiction movie so I can see reason for a better sounding term, but surely they could have come up with a better word than Intersex. Sex isn't in any of the terms and it shouldn't be there either. They are Dual Gender or Inter Gender.

The last one is the kicker and the reason I have little patience for things like Hamilton being attacked the way he was. The "A" stands for Ally or "Friend of the Cause". It's not a war. hasn't been for decades now so why the hostility from a group that clams to just want to be accepted. Ironically, with the exception of a few ignorant morons, some of whom hold high positions in local and national government, gay people are widely accepted by the masses and no one cares what they wish to do behind closed doors, just as is the rule with heterosexual folks. Unless you go to swinger clubs or events, that stuff should remain private and going around shouting this is what I do, this is who I am isn't proper either. When was the last time you saw a heterosexual group walking around shouting and boasting "we're here and we only have intercourse with people of the opposite gender!"… Never! It's unnecessary… For everyone.

I certainly didn't think your post was TLDR and I appreciate your well thought out points.

I would like to see how this generation grows up before committing my self to an opinion.

So expect your reply in 20 years? Just kidding!

What's your current opinion moby? I find that I generally trust your opinions, even when we disagree!

I think I will keep my powder dry on this one

For many years, since before we were Homo Sapient, family has always been about elders teaching kids what is accepted in society and what is not. This decade 'society' has changed. the future depends on which way it goes.

Well, when I say 'society' I actually mean a very small section of the population of this planet that currently see ourselves as as the forefront.This could change next week, next year, then what would happen? I think the sensible thing to do is to keep my head down

Don't know if you are smart to trust my opinions though. In general it is do as you would be done by, which has served me well, but as I say, things are changing

I would like to see how this generation grows up before committing my self to an opinion.

So expect your reply in 20 years? Just kidding!

What's your current opinion moby? I find that I generally trust your opinions, even when we disagree!

I think I will keep my powder dry on this one

For many years, since before we were Homo Sapient, family has always been about elders teaching kids what is accepted in society and what is not. This decade 'society' has changed. the future depends on which way it goes.

Well, when I say 'society' I actually mean a very small section of the population of this planet that currently see ourselves as as the forefront.This could change next week, next year, then what would happen? I think the sensible thing to do is to keep my head down

Don't know if you are smart to trust my opinions though. In general it is do as you would be done by, which has served me well, but as I say, things are changing

BIB: Amen!

Yeah, it seems that common sense is going out of the window. And while we don't have things like segregation for example (thank god!), it seems that political correctness has taken it's own place in the common sense scale.

Only yesterday someone where I work was mentioning that he is now not 100% sure if he should smile at a female co-worker in case she takes it wrong and complains. He wasn't joking either... It is getting silly.

My take on the whole thing is that it was simply playing teasing, no malice was intended and as soon as I read the an article a couple of weeks ago before reading this thread I thought that the reaction was blown out of proportion!

He didn't say 'boys can't wear dresses' or 'take that dress off'. And if we're going down the route of political correctness, maybe his nephew doesn't identify as being a boy anyway so it's all fine!

I have no problems with people dressing or acting how they want to (within reason, you can't go around naked or robbing and murdering people obviously!). But my issue with the SJW band wagon is that they only see things from their point of view. What if someone is incredibly closed minded to it all and simply seeing a person born as a male, wearing a dress really offends them? Are they not allowed to be offended by it even if they are? How about pointing it out to the people who have offended them? And they certainty can't go around calling people names meant in an offensive and derogatory way the same way calling Hamilton a bigot was done.

_________________There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Just a slightly tongue-in-cheek observation; watching and listening to the media more recently there always seems to be very vocal people on hand who take their level of outrage to a very professional level, and then you get a second group who are equally outraged at the level of outrage from the first group.

And the debate then consists of two groups who are almost in a constant state of outrage, which probably does more harm than good to the subject of debate

For those of you that think that it's a private family situation and no harm can come from such a comment, I can only assume you don't work with children who have significant issues believing in themselves because they don't fit a so-called ideal picture of a young boy or girl.

I'm NOT saying this is the case with Hamilton's nephew, it's only one comment so I wouldn't dare to think I can read the situation. I'm simply putting the point across that a frighteningly high number of children who are regularly given small, seemingly insignificant put-downs about what boys or girls should do, often end up in a complete mess because all these tiny things add up over time.

For those of you that think that it's a private family situation and no harm can come from such a comment, I can only assume you don't work with children who have significant issues believing in themselves because they don't fit a so-called ideal picture of a young boy or girl.

I'm NOT saying this is the case with Hamilton's nephew, it's only one comment so I wouldn't dare to think I can read the situation. I'm simply putting the point across that a frighteningly high number of children who are regularly given small, seemingly insignificant put-downs about what boys or girls should do, often end up in a complete mess because all these tiny things add up over time.

I come from a family who love to wind each other up. I've married in to a family who love to wind each other up.

I think you need to differentiate between intermittent teasing in amongst a lot of love, versus a constant stream of small but negative comments.

Some of the comments on this thread (not yours) around bullying is absolute madness. Some people see the person, Hamilton, and just can't wait to line up to take a shot. At least Kimi has set up an Instagram I suppose, so at least 1 semi-interesting F1 driver might provide the public with some of their personality.

For those of you that think that it's a private family situation and no harm can come from such a comment, I can only assume you don't work with children who have significant issues believing in themselves because they don't fit a so-called ideal picture of a young boy or girl.

I'm NOT saying this is the case with Hamilton's nephew, it's only one comment so I wouldn't dare to think I can read the situation. I'm simply putting the point across that a frighteningly high number of children who are regularly given small, seemingly insignificant put-downs about what boys or girls should do, often end up in a complete mess because all these tiny things add up over time.

I come from a family who love to wind each other up. I've married in to a family who love to wind each other up.

I think you need to differentiate between intermittent teasing in amongst a lot of love, versus a constant stream of small but negative comments.

Some of the comments on this thread (not yours) around bullying is absolute madness. Some people see the person, Hamilton, and just can't wait to line up to take a shot. At least Kimi has set up an Instagram I suppose, so at least 1 semi-interesting F1 driver might provide the public with some of their personality.

I'm certainly not saying that winding up people is always going to be a problem, I just don't like the blanket assumption some people have made, not just in this thread, that it's all harmless. For LH and his nephew, it probably is, just not for all.

I work with a lot of primary school-aged children who have all sorts of issues with self-esteem and insecurities about who they are and I never fail to be amazed at the long-term effects of seemingly innocent teasing, especially when the person or people that have done this to them are people of high confidence, a strong personality and seen as a leader or dominant person in their eyes. It's not simply the comment that causes the problems, but who it comes from.

For those of you that think that it's a private family situation and no harm can come from such a comment, I can only assume you don't work with children who have significant issues believing in themselves because they don't fit a so-called ideal picture of a young boy or girl.

I'm NOT saying this is the case with Hamilton's nephew, it's only one comment so I wouldn't dare to think I can read the situation. I'm simply putting the point across that a frighteningly high number of children who are regularly given small, seemingly insignificant put-downs about what boys or girls should do, often end up in a complete mess because all these tiny things add up over time.

I come from a family who love to wind each other up. I've married in to a family who love to wind each other up.

I think you need to differentiate between intermittent teasing in amongst a lot of love, versus a constant stream of small but negative comments.

Some of the comments on this thread (not yours) around bullying is absolute madness. Some people see the person, Hamilton, and just can't wait to line up to take a shot. At least Kimi has set up an Instagram I suppose, so at least 1 semi-interesting F1 driver might provide the public with some of their personality.

I'm certainly not saying that winding up people is always going to be a problem, I just don't like the blanket assumption some people have made, not just in this thread, that it's all harmless. For LH and his nephew, it probably is, just not for all.

I work with a lot of primary school-aged children who have all sorts of issues with self-esteem and insecurities about who they are and I never fail to be amazed at the long-term effects of seemingly innocent teasing, especially when the person or people that have done this to them are people of high confidence, a strong personality and seen as a leader or dominant person in their eyes. It's not simply the comment that causes the problems, but who it comes from.

You make a very valid point, AW.

Quote:

Some people see the person, Hamilton, and just can't wait to line up to take a shot. At least Kimi has set up an Instagram I suppose, so at least 1 semi-interesting F1 driver might provide the public with some of their personality.

Ennis, While in some cases, you may be right, it should be pointed out that not every case of someone criticizing something Lewis has said or done is someone "lining up to take a shot". Believe it or not, some people actually really believe what they say because of their own values... not out of some perceived anti-Hamilton stance.

Ennis, While in some cases, you may be right, it should be pointed out that not every case of someone criticizing something Lewis has said or done is someone "lining up to take a shot". Believe it or not, some people actually really believe what they say because of their own values... not out of some perceived anti-Hamilton stance.

I agree with that (look at Asphalt World for example - fair and balanced), but there are certain names you can be guaranteed are going to be biased in this and dive right in with some overly emotive 'the whole world is going to end because of Lewis Hamilton' nonsense. I'm avoiding names but there's one in particular who grinds me every single time with their pretend-objectivity, to the point I think they genuinely believe themselves that they aren't letting their personal dislike of Hamilton form their opinion.

There are also those who'll line up to defend his every move, but I don't find those anywhere near as loud or annoying.

Christ on a bike! (sorry of that offends anyone).[/quote]Been reading back over this thread and it occurs to me to clarify that while we don't want people to start laying into each other and attacking one another, general statements like this are not going to get you banned even if someone protests. You're all allowed a sense of humour. Although I have to admit this particular phrase always confused me because cycling either barefoot or in sandals isn't especially comfortable.

Although having said that, I realise we censor swear words. We've tried not doing it and the hassle it caused was insane. The filter is under constant review and I hope one day it can be ditched.

@Biffa - sound advice, last thing you want is your son brought home for indecent exposure

@Siao7 - Not entirely sure that joke has aged as well, it's one of those that is funnier [by dint of being more accurate] in some households than others. not that it's not equally amusing

Right, I'm going to stop interfering in the debate now, other than to say thank you to you all for keeping it civil no matter how much you disagree with other members.

_________________

AlienTurnedHuman wrote:

Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

I don't think I've ever said this online before and I have no idea how it'll be received, but here goes. This may be oversharing but it's relevant to the discussion.

Someone above mentioned the problems some kids have fitting in. For that reason alone, for them to see as many people as possible embracing diversity is a good thing for them, and does little harm in the wider world. As a kid I was terrible at fitting in [probably still am, but I no longer care ] and I'm certain that my dad didn't help with that.

Growing up, and again it's still true today, I was a very effeminate boy. So naturally through my entire school life I was bullied. At this point, it's just one of those things and probably made me a better person today than had I been on the other side, but anyway. Amidst all this, I could be a little brat sometimes at home. One night my dad decided that I needed a more overt punishment [don't ask more overt than what, I honestly can't remember what else was tried, probably the usual smacks, groundings etc but I was only about 7] so we went out to a supermarket, me still trying not to cry if memory serves for whatever reaction I'd been faced with. My dad decided to pick out a Barbie dress and even went as far as to tell the girl on the checkout he was buying it for me as a punishment. I wish I could have seen her reaction, but at the time I was so embarrassed and upset I think I spent most of the time looking at the floor. Anyway, this dress sat in my wardrobe until my parents split up. My mum only found out about the dress when I was about 21, and she was furious, but looking back I doubt it helped me feel much better about fitting in with other kids.

Ironically now I can't remember more than twice in the last 6 years that I wore anything but a dress [or some variation, there was a tutu once] to formal events, and it's sort of become a thing I do now more than anything, it's expected and normally ends up drawing envy from some people about how good my legs look

I'm not saying that Hamilton's nephew is in the same boat as me, but identity, especially as a child, is a huge thing to try to understand and it doesn't need to be complicated by those closest to you. But we don't know the wider context of Hamilton's family dynamic, so it's impossible to judge there. Just some food for thought.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

I don't think I've ever said this online before and I have no idea how it'll be received, but here goes. This may be oversharing but it's relevant to the discussion.

Someone above mentioned the problems some kids have fitting in. For that reason alone, for them to see as many people as possible embracing diversity is a good thing for them, and does little harm in the wider world. As a kid I was terrible at fitting in [probably still am, but I no longer care ] and I'm certain that my dad didn't help with that.

Growing up, and again it's still true today, I was a very effeminate boy. So naturally through my entire school life I was bullied. At this point, it's just one of those things and probably made me a better person today than had I been on the other side, but anyway. Amidst all this, I could be a little brat sometimes at home. One night my dad decided that I needed a more overt punishment [don't ask more overt than what, I honestly can't remember what else was tried, probably the usual smacks, groundings etc but I was only about 7] so we went out to a supermarket, me still trying not to cry if memory serves for whatever reaction I'd been faced with. My dad decided to pick out a Barbie dress and even went as far as to tell the girl on the checkout he was buying it for me as a punishment. I wish I could have seen her reaction, but at the time I was so embarrassed and upset I think I spent most of the time looking at the floor. Anyway, this dress sat in my wardrobe until my parents split up. My mum only found out about the dress when I was about 21, and she was furious, but looking back I doubt it helped me feel much better about fitting in with other kids.

Ironically now I can't remember more than twice in the last 6 years that I wore anything but a dress [or some variation, there was a tutu once] to formal events, and it's sort of become a thing I do now more than anything, it's expected and normally ends up drawing envy from some people about how good my legs look

I'm not saying that Hamilton's nephew is in the same boat as me, but identity, especially as a child, is a huge thing to try to understand and it doesn't need to be complicated by those closest to you. But we don't know the wider context of Hamilton's family dynamic, so it's impossible to judge there. Just some food for thought.

My mum still recounts my gran (on my dad's side) taking her aside to tell her that I'm definitely gay. Turned out I wasn't, not that I have noticed yet anyway and I'm 31 now. Being a bit softly-spoken and floppy-wristed as a child drew its own conclusions.

As someone who would have fantastic legs for a female, I can relate but perhaps in a more negative way. I've been doing squats and deadlifts for years to try and turn these things chunky, but still if I shaved them and applied some fake tan I'd have the legs of a (female) supermodel. Try explaining my annoyance at this to most females though, and I'm just met with death-stares. It's a bit like when I complain that I struggle putting weight on, when everyone else around me is in a permanent fight to lose weight.

I don't think I've ever said this online before and I have no idea how it'll be received, but here goes. This may be oversharing but it's relevant to the discussion.

Someone above mentioned the problems some kids have fitting in. For that reason alone, for them to see as many people as possible embracing diversity is a good thing for them, and does little harm in the wider world. As a kid I was terrible at fitting in [probably still am, but I no longer care ] and I'm certain that my dad didn't help with that.

Growing up, and again it's still true today, I was a very effeminate boy. So naturally through my entire school life I was bullied. At this point, it's just one of those things and probably made me a better person today than had I been on the other side, but anyway. Amidst all this, I could be a little brat sometimes at home. One night my dad decided that I needed a more overt punishment [don't ask more overt than what, I honestly can't remember what else was tried, probably the usual smacks, groundings etc but I was only about 7] so we went out to a supermarket, me still trying not to cry if memory serves for whatever reaction I'd been faced with. My dad decided to pick out a Barbie dress and even went as far as to tell the girl on the checkout he was buying it for me as a punishment. I wish I could have seen her reaction, but at the time I was so embarrassed and upset I think I spent most of the time looking at the floor. Anyway, this dress sat in my wardrobe until my parents split up. My mum only found out about the dress when I was about 21, and she was furious, but looking back I doubt it helped me feel much better about fitting in with other kids.

Ironically now I can't remember more than twice in the last 6 years that I wore anything but a dress [or some variation, there was a tutu once] to formal events, and it's sort of become a thing I do now more than anything, it's expected and normally ends up drawing envy from some people about how good my legs look

I'm not saying that Hamilton's nephew is in the same boat as me, but identity, especially as a child, is a huge thing to try to understand and it doesn't need to be complicated by those closest to you. But we don't know the wider context of Hamilton's family dynamic, so it's impossible to judge there. Just some food for thought.

My mum still recounts my gran (on my dad's side) taking her aside to tell her that I'm definitely gay. Turned out I wasn't, not that I have noticed yet anyway and I'm 31 now. Being a bit softly-spoken and floppy-wristed as a child drew its own conclusions.

As someone who would have fantastic legs for a female, I can relate but perhaps in a more negative way. I've been doing squats and deadlifts for years to try and turn these things chunky, but still if I shaved them and applied some fake tan I'd have the legs of a (female) supermodel. Try explaining my annoyance at this to most females though, and I'm just met with death-stares. It's a bit like when I complain that I struggle putting weight on, when everyone else around me is in a permanent fight to lose weight.

I remember a Halloween party at Uni that 4 of us boys borrowed the skirts and clothes from our female friends. They did not like it that we all had nicer legs than them, they even took pictures of us to compare. Turns out, playing football and basketball tones your legs, who would have thought!!!

Christ on a bike! (sorry of that offends anyone).Been reading back over this thread and it occurs to me to clarify that while we don't want people to start laying into each other and attacking one another, general statements like this are not going to get you banned even if someone protests. You're all allowed a sense of humour. Although I have to admit this particular phrase always confused me because cycling either barefoot or in sandals isn't especially comfortable.

Although having said that, I realise we censor swear words. We've tried not doing it and the hassle it caused was insane. The filter is under constant review and I hope one day it can be ditched.

@Biffa - sound advice, last thing you want is your son brought home for indecent exposure

@Siao7 - Not entirely sure that joke has aged as well, it's one of those that is funnier [by dint of being more accurate] in some households than others. not that it's not equally amusing

Right, I'm going to stop interfering in the debate now, other than to say thank you to you all for keeping it civil no matter how much you disagree with other members.

Thank you.

Also, as a cyclist I can tell you that Shimano does (or did) a sandal with cleats for cycling. My mate had it during our summer European bike touring and it was apparently awesome to cycle with!